Albert Einstein on socialism

[Moderate Right]

I am curious: what's wrong with a democratic one world government? Actually sounds like a great idea to me.

Right now, we have a small global village, and its shrinking more and more as technology advances and economies become ever more inter-dependent. But it's a village without a sheriff. Every village, town, neighborhood, workplace, etc... needs a set of clearly written rules, a means of enforcing them, and consequences for not doing so, ie, a system of government. Otherwise it's just dysfunctional. If you like the idea of law and order, an international federation of government to oversee and enforce international law, treaties, extraditions, etc... seems to be absolutely necessary.

It will also be good for business. Business does not do well with geopolitical instability and lawlessness. Think if there was one central, democratically elected international body with means of law enforcement, and then all the nations could divert all the resources they are pouring into national defense and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction, to things like scientific research, space exploration, biomedical research like cancer and Alzheimer's disease, education of their citizens, vaccinations for all children, etc, etc....

An elected international government, with an internal system of checks and balances like the US federal government. A UN with teeth and actual law enforcement capability. It just sounds like an idea whose time has come. Not sure why it's such an evil idea.

As always, Einstein may have the last laugh yet.

Utopia does not exist. One world government cannot happen without one country taking over the world, as Hitler wanted to do.

 

[veritas1]

One of the greatest scientists, economists, and political historians ever, Albert Einstein, had the following to say about capitalism and socialism.

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future."

"Capitalism as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."

Good thing Einstein stuck to what he knew about rather than venturing into what he didn't.

 

[veritas1]

I am curious: what's wrong with a democratic one world government? Actually sounds like a great idea to me.

Right now, we have a small global village, and its shrinking more and more as technology advances and economies become ever more inter-dependent. But it's a village without a sheriff. Every village, town, neighborhood, workplace, etc... needs a set of clearly written rules, a means of enforcing them, and consequences for not doing so, ie, a system of government. Otherwise it's just dysfunctional. If you like the idea of law and order, an international federation of government to oversee and enforce international law, treaties, extraditions, etc... seems to be absolutely necessary.

It will also be good for business. Business does not do well with geopolitical instability and lawlessness. Think if there was one central, democratically elected international body with means of law enforcement, and then all the nations could divert all the resources they are pouring into national defense and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction, to things like scientific research, space exploration, biomedical research like cancer and Alzheimer's disease, education of their citizens, vaccinations for all children, etc, etc....

An elected international government, with an internal system of checks and balances like the US federal government. A UN with teeth and actual law enforcement capability. It just sounds like an idea whose time has come. Not sure why it's such an evil idea.

As always, Einstein may have the last laugh yet.

It actually sounds like a terrible idea. All the have nots, when given the power to do so, will steal from the haves. We see this right here in our own country. World government would be the same thing on steroids. A melange of races, cultures and religions, all with different ideas, are never going to get along in this system, particularly those who either have never seen democracy or have an antipathy to it. It's a pipe dream and not a good one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I am curious: what's wrong with a democratic one world government? Actually sounds like a great idea to me.

Right now, we have a small global village, and its shrinking more and more as technology advances and economies become ever more inter-dependent. But it's a village without a sheriff. Every village, town, neighborhood, workplace, etc... needs a set of clearly written rules, a means of enforcing them, and consequences for not doing so, ie, a system of government. Otherwise it's just dysfunctional. If you like the idea of law and order, an international federation of government to oversee and enforce international law, treaties, extraditions, etc... seems to be absolutely necessary.

It will also be good for business. Business does not do well with geopolitical instability and lawlessness. Think if there was one central, democratically elected international body with means of law enforcement, and then all the nations could divert all the resources they are pouring into national defense and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction, to things like scientific research, space exploration, biomedical research like cancer and Alzheimer's disease, education of their citizens, vaccinations for all children, etc, etc....

An elected international government, with an internal system of checks and balances like the US federal government. A UN with teeth and actual law enforcement capability. It just sounds like an idea whose time has come. Not sure why it's such an evil idea.

As always, Einstein may have the last laugh yet.

Hmm... that China, India, South Amerca and Africa would have over 50% (majority) say in what that "one world" policy is.

 

[ataraxia]

Utopia does not exist. One world government cannot happen without one country taking over the world, as Hitler wanted to do.

While utopia may not ever be possible, there are smarter and dumber ways, better and worse ways, to do things. You cannot be afraid of wiping your own behind because you may have utopia.

If do US could keep large states like Virginia and New York from taking over the country, there can be ways to keep large countries from taking over the world.

 

[ataraxia]

The problem is, as always, human nature. Einstein had no solution for that.

He was able to rise above his own, but it's not the sort of thing that is easily taught or learned.

We'll stay Capitalist (I believe it's instinctual) until a crisis forces us to cooperate, and then we'll turn on each other again the moment it passes.

Socialism and Communism simply don't scale well beyond the small village level.

Pure capitalism was also abandoned by most industrializing countries by the end of the 19th-century. Problems like the exploitation of child labor and monopolies showed that some regulation and safety nets were necessary. That’s why all modern economies in the world today are mixed economies.

 

[ataraxia]

It actually sounds like a terrible idea. All the have nots, when given the power to do so, will steal from the haves. We see this right here in our own country. World government would be the same thing on steroids. A melange of races, cultures and religions, all with different ideas, are never going to get along in this system, particularly those who either have never seen democracy or have an antipathy to it. It's a pipe dream and not a good one.

Although we have some problems with deciding the exact lines on authorities of federal vs local government in this country, it’s still better than the alternative. It does surprisingly well the vast majority of the time. FBI works very closely with local law-enforcement to apprehend dangerous criminals and fugitives from the law. Would you rather have us dissolve the US federal government and have every county for itself?

 

[ataraxia]

It actually sounds like a terrible idea. All the have nots, when given the power to do so, will steal from the haves. We see this right here in our own country. World government would be the same thing on steroids. A melange of races, cultures and religions, all with different ideas, are never going to get along in this system, particularly those who either have never seen democracy or have an antipathy to it. It's a pipe dream and not a good one.

I see a “Melange of different places, cultures, religions”, every day going to work. It’s fine. It’s not an issue at all.

 

[Moderate Right]

While utopia may not ever be possible, there are smarter and dumber ways, better and worse ways, to do things. You cannot be afraid of wiping your own behind because you may have utopia.

If do US could keep large states like Virginia and New York from taking over the country, there can be ways to keep large countries from taking over the world.

Well, the US is the largest economy in the world so, given that, I don't see where we've done too badly. About the only argument you could make is that China will soon be the largest economy in the world. Do you want to be like China?

 

[veritas1]

Although would have some problems in this country, it’s still better than the alternative. Would you rather have us dissolve the US federal government and have every county for itself?

No, I want us to uphold our Constitution and keep the system the founders gave us.

 

[veritas1]

I see a “Melange of different places, cultures, religions”, every day going to work. It’s fine. It’s not an issue at all.

And most all of those people have been born here or come from families long established here. They are familiar with our system and have grown up with it. Not so the rest of the planet.

 

[ataraxia]

Well, the US is the largest economy in the world so, given that, I don't see where we've done too badly. About the only argument you could make is that China will soon be the largest economy in the world. Do you want to be like China?

Does W. Virginia have to be like California?

 

[ataraxia]

And most all of those people have been born here or come from families long established here. They are familiar with our system and have grown up with it. Not so the rest of the planet.

The world is increasingly developing a new, global culture. Hollywood movies and pop music are as popular in Iran and Korea as they are here. Old religions are fading. Culturally, are all more like to each other today and we are to even two or three generations of our own ancestors.

 

[ataraxia]

No, I want us to uphold our Constitution and keep the system the founders gave us.

The purpose of an international federal government would be things like regulation of international trade, extradition of criminals, enforcing contracts and agreements, etc... in the same way that states have their own constitutions and legislatures despite a national federal government, so too all nations Will be able to maintain authority over their own local governments.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I do like people that have confidence! Then again, at some point you do have to prove you know more than Einstein. Prove it.

I have the benefit of almost a hundred years of history to use to educate my position.

That he was clever at physics did not mean that he was good at understanding humans. Quite possibly it implies the opposite, having met a few physicists and mathematicians.

You have more political history to look at than he did. You have better data. You can thus be in a positioon to see many of the mystakes of absolute single minded socialism.

Human political systems need to be balanced with lots of checks to avoid the inevitable disaster of only having one person doing all the decisions.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I am curious: what's wrong with a democratic one world government? Actually sounds like a great idea to me.

Right now, we have a small global village, and its shrinking more and more as technology advances and economies become ever more inter-dependent. But it's a village without a sheriff. Every village, town, neighborhood, workplace, etc... needs a set of clearly written rules, a means of enforcing them, and consequences for not doing so, ie, a system of government. Otherwise it's just dysfunctional. If you like the idea of law and order, an international federation of government to oversee and enforce international law, treaties, extraditions, etc... seems to be absolutely necessary.

It will also be good for business. Business does not do well with geopolitical instability and lawlessness. Think if there was one central, democratically elected international body with means of law enforcement, and then all the nations could divert all the resources they are pouring into national defense and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction, to things like scientific research, space exploration, biomedical research like cancer and Alzheimer's disease, education of their citizens, vaccinations for all children, etc, etc....

An elected international government, with an internal system of checks and balances like the US federal government. A UN with teeth and actual law enforcement capability. It just sounds like an idea whose time has come. Not sure why it's such an evil idea.

As always, Einstein may have the last laugh yet.

The state of the Holly Roman Empire lasted a thousand years (almost) and was less of a state than the whole world is today (with a very tiny odd exception, North Korea).

We have this world government.

You Americans elect your sherrifs. This allows a high degree of social flexibility and local discression. If you transfer that idea to France having a different mechanism of governance to Russia or Chad then you have something like you describe already.

Mastercard works in all these states. It has the backing and will not fiunction without a very tightly enforced set of particular laws. One world government is here. This is what it looks like.

 

[D_NATURED]

What were Einstein's credentials in the field of economics?

Oh, is economics such a weighty subject that GENIUSES can't have an opinion? The idea that a theoretical physicist needs an economics degree to understand it is silly. Suffice to say that economics is a subject that has never excluded anybody for being dumb. Even Trump thinks he knows what he's talking about.

Besides, it's not like the credentialed economists aren't wrong a lot. I would value Einstein's opinion a great deal more than any conservative who advocates trickle down by any of its various pseudonyms.

There are many idiots who claim to understand economics. At least we're pretty sure Einstein wasn't one of them.

 

[jnug]

Oh, is economics such a weighty subject that GENIUSES can't have an opinion? The idea that a theoretical physicist needs an economics degree to understand it is silly. Suffice to say that economics is a subject that has never excluded anybody for being dumb. Even Trump thinks he knows what he's talking about.

Besides, it's not like the credentialed economists aren't wrong a lot. I would value Einstein's opinion a great deal more than any conservative who advocates trickle down by any of its various pseudonyms.

There are many idiots who claim to understand economics. At least we're pretty sure Einstein wasn't one of them.

The problem IMO is not necessarily Socialism or Capitalism. The problem is allowing false pretense to creep into arguments of what is Socialistic v Capitalistic like in discussions of single payer healthcare or even if the accurate standard for the discussion is Socialism v Capitalism.

Single payer is as appropriate in a Capitalist economy wrapped in a Constitutional Republic as it is in a Socialist System. One of the bedrock foundation blocks of our Constitutional Republic is that Protection falls within the domain and purview of either the Individual or the State as in some form of Government. If there is a "protection" that is simply outside the scope and means of the Individual, it falls to the State, just as National Defense falls to the State. Healthcare has not been within the scope or means of the average American for decades. In fact it is out of reach for all but the wealthiest of Americans. That it is out of reach became truly obvious when employers started scaling back the percentage of employees that were covered under their benefits programs and Americans had to change jobs and change locations more often just to remain employed. If the true cost of private insurance company health insurance had not been masked under employer benefits packages, we would have seen that long long ago.

Healthcare Insurance is Protection based insurance as opposed to Liability based insurance and as such the value inherent to the policyholder in a Liability based insurance policy is entirely lacking. Take the Liability framework with its inherent value to the policyholder away and all you have is a policyholder fighting against an actuarial table. Good luck wining that battle!

We should have seen this coming. Why is Medicare popular? Because in the main Medicare recipients are either retired or disabled and unable to maintain employment....hence fell outside the umbrella of Private Healthcare Insurance Company Insurance covered under an Employer Benefits package. The demise of the Unions made for smaller groups covered by policies and that started to bring more of the true cost of Private Healthcare Insurance Company Insurance and some ugly truth to the surface as well.

Most significant, all of these societal changes in how and in what kind of employment we are employed and what the contemporary career now looks like or even what the contemporary job now looks like also exposed how much the Private Healthcare Insurance Companies had a hand in being cost drivers for the entire US Healthcare Delivery System. Once we realized how many Americans were ultimately being financially broken by this Broken system, it was natural for folks to start to put 2 and 2 together and get 4. Enter Healthcare System reform and the ACA which was never intended to be anything more than a first step away from our broken Healthcare Delivery System and the heavy hand Private Healthcare Insurance plays in it.

IMO, private for profit healthcare insurance companies never should have existed in the first place or if they existed at all, they should have been in a very narrow sliver of the total Healthcare Delivery System....in some narrowly defined box that did not allow them to become the pervasive influence on the Healthcare Delivery System they have become. You can not allow a pervasive influence like private healthcare insurance companies with their profit motive to drive the system as they drive cost without actually providing a benefit to the policyholder which is what has happened in this country.

You need to have an overarching influence incentivized to drive cost down which a private for profit healthcare insurance company is never going to be. Why do you think Donald complains that the "the real problem with US prescription drug prices is all these other countries and their deals with the big pharmaceutical companies". What Donald conveniently misses is the rudimentary Healthcare Delivery System decisions those countries made that give them the scale and the market position to drive down the cost of pharmaceuticals.

In closing the whole Socialistic v Capitalistic discussion is misplaced in many of the discussions where it surfaces. It is false pretense. Screaming that single payer is creeping Socialism infringing on our Constitutional Republic is sheer nonsense.

 

[WCH]

I am curious: what's wrong with a democratic one world government? Actually sounds like a great idea to me.

Right now, we have a small global village, and its shrinking more and more as technology advances and economies become ever more inter-dependent. But it's a village without a sheriff. Every village, town, neighborhood, workplace, etc... needs a set of clearly written rules, a means of enforcing them, and consequences for not doing so, ie, a system of government. Otherwise it's just dysfunctional. If you like the idea of law and order, an international federation of government to oversee and enforce international law, treaties, extraditions, etc... seems to be absolutely necessary.

It will also be good for business. Business does not do well with geopolitical instability and lawlessness. Think if there was one central, democratically elected international body with means of law enforcement, and then all the nations could divert all the resources they are pouring into national defense and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction, to things like scientific research, space exploration, biomedical research like cancer and Alzheimer's disease, education of their citizens, vaccinations for all children, etc, etc....

An elected international government, with an internal system of checks and balances like the US federal government. A UN with teeth and actual law enforcement capability. It just sounds like an idea whose time has come. Not sure why it's such an evil idea.

As always, Einstein may have the last laugh yet.

A far away government that may not have your best interests at heart, one that you could neither address or redress....no thanks.



http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning

 

[WCH]

While utopia may not ever be possible, there are smarter and dumber ways, better and worse ways, to do things. You cannot be afraid of wiping your own behind because you may have utopia.

If do US could keep large states like Virginia and New York from taking over the country, there can be ways to keep large countries from taking over the world.

Unless those with the power and wealth are only obsessed with keeping it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU&feature=youtu.be

 

[KLATTU]

One thing that needs to be explained is that Socialism is not the same as Communism. Socialism does work if done correctly. Finland, Sweden, and New Zealand are good examples of Socialist countries that are doing well and the people have high standards of life, both economically and emotionally, as well as high degree of happiness.

First off the happiness of those countries is all BS based on BS surveys. Those places suck- it gets dark at 2 oclock. Eff that.
People who don't know any better assume where they are is ok.

The right way means a whole lot of capitalism.

 

[Luckyone]

I have the benefit of almost a hundred years of history to use to educate my position.

So do we all. That does not make us more knowledgeable than Einstein in economics!

That he was clever at physics did not mean that he was good at understanding humans. Quite possibly it implies the opposite, having met a few physicists and mathematicians.

Pure speculation on your part. He proved his huge brain worked in many things, suggesting that at the very least he had a very very good brain.

You have more political history to look at than he did. You have better data. You can thus be in a positioon to see many of the mystakes of absolute single minded socialism.

People are people and have always been. Throughout history all kinds of political concepts are risen and been tried. There is nothing new about the ones now.

Human political systems need to be balanced with lots of checks to avoid the inevitable disaster of only having one person doing all the decisions.

On this I totally agree and that is why Trump is so dangerous and destructive to our nation. Socialism is not a dictatorship or anything like that, so it does not apply here.

 

[Luckyone]

First off the happiness of those countries is all BS based on BS surveys. Those places suck- it gets dark at 2 oclock. Eff that.
People who don't know any better assume where they are is ok.

The right way means a whole lot of capitalism.

When you make a statement such as "happiness in those countries is all BS", you need to back it up with facts. You have not yet established yourself as a person that knows anything so words coming out of your mouth are cheap and meaningless.

 

[spud_meister]

One of the greatest scientists, economists, and political historians ever, Albert Einstein, had the following to say about capitalism and socialism.

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future."

"Capitalism as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion."

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."

Einstein was neither an economist nor a historian. He starts the essay with "Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism?" To argue socialism is good because Einstein supported it is fallacious, after all, this was the man that said “It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”

 

[ataraxia]

A far away government that may not have your best interests at heart, one that you could neither address or redress....no thanks.



http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning

Every size jurisdiction needs some decent system of government, law, and order to keep from turning into mayhem. Every family has a set of rules (even if unwritten). Every neighborhood condo association, or workplace, or school, swimming pool, and playground has a set of rules. Every city and county has a set of rules. Every state has a set of rules. Every nation has a set of rules.

Just because you have a set of rules for your workplace, does that mean your county should not have rules? Just because you have a set of rules for your county, does it mean we should no longer have a state or federal government?

International law is the same. There have to be some rules, and a formal system of law and order, and a means to enforce them, at the level of international interactions, to create a less chaotic and dysfunctional international arena. It will be good for business. War, or even the threat of it, is not good for capitalism. Contracts and treaties, without the means of enforcing them, is not good for capitalism. Enforceable international law will free up a lot of funds from being spent on national defense which could go to much better investment elsewhere.

Think about how much money would be freed up if all the nations of the Earth stopped spending so much of their GDP on their militaries, and instead used it for other things. Not only would we get rid of everything from cancer to Alzheimer's, we could be exploring the freaking Andromeda galaxy by now.